bookmark_borderFeser’s Perverted Faculty Argument – Part 1: The Core Argument

HSIAO’S PERVERTED FACULTY ARGUMENT
I have REJECTED Timothy Hsiao’s Perverted Faculty “Argument” against homosexual sex NOT because it was a bad argument, but because it was a FAUX argument, and not an actual argument.  The core “argument” by Hsiao consists of three declarative sentences that were so UNCLEAR that they cannot be rationally evaluated, and thus those sentences do NOT assert actual claims, and thus those sentences do NOT constitute an actual argument.
For my analysis and criticism of Hsiao’s “argument” see the following posts:

Aquinas and Homosexual Sex – Part 1: A Thomist Argument
Aquinas and Homosexual Sex – Part 2: Argument Structure
Aquinas and Homosexual Sex – Part 3: Unclear Argument
Aquinas and Homosexual Sex – Part 4: The Logic of Applied Ethics
Aquinas and Homosexual Sex – Part 5: From Fake to Real
Aquinas and Homosexual Sex – Part 6: Sexual Activity
Aquinas and Homosexual Sex – Part 7: Definitions of “Sexual Activity”
Aquinas and Homosexual Sex – Part 8: Legal Definitions

 
FESER’S PERVERTED FACULTY ARGUMENT
Edward Feser has also put forward a version of the Perverted Faculty Argument (hereafter: PFA), so I will now examine that argument in the hopes that it is an actual argument consisting of actual claims.  Based on his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God, Feser understands the need to define and clarify the meanings of key words and phrases in philosophical arguments.  I am hoping that in his presentation of PFA,  Feser will define and/or clarify the meanings of key words and phrases in his version of PFA so that it constitutes an actual argument that is composed of actual claims.  If I find his effort to constitute an actual argument, then I will attempt to rationally evaluate that argument.
Here is how Feser summarizes PFA in his book Neo-Scholastic Essays (hereafter: NSE):

(NSE, p. 403-404)
The logical structure of this argument is simple and straightforward, consisting of a series of three inferences:

THE CORE ARGUMENT IN FESER’S PFA
Typically, the core of such a three-tiered argument occurs in the middle of the argument, and that seems to be the case here.  I have indicated what I take to be the core argument by the purple line drawn around the middle argument.
Here is what I take to be the core argument in Feser’s PFA:

(NSE, p. 404)
As with Hsiao’s PFA, this core argument is filled with UNCLEAR words and phrases.  However, for right now, I’m going to assume that Feser defines or clarifies the meanings of these UNCLEAR words and phrases (or most of them) somewhere in the chapter that he devotes to PFA, so that these sentences will turn out to be actual claims.
Before I try to nail down the meanings of the various UNCLEAR terms, I am going to work at eliminating UNCLEAR REFERENCES in these sentences, by applying a basic rule of argument analysis:

*** 86 THE MOTHERFUCKING PRONOUNS! ***

I don’t use the expression “motherfucking” here to indicate a criticism of Feser.  We ALL use pronouns, and even the best philosophers use pronouns when laying out philosophical arguments.  So, in using pronouns to summarize PFA, Feser is not doing anything contrary to normal practice, even among the best philosophers.
Nevertheless, it is good to develop some antipathy towards pronouns, if you want to properly analyze and evaluate philosophical arguments, or even if you just want to be a competent critical thinker.  Pronouns often create AMBIGUITY and UNCLARITY, and these things are anathema to philosophy and to critical thinking.
Don’t criticize what you don’t understand.  We need to understand the meaning of a claim first, before we can rationally evaluate that claim.  We need to understand an argument first, before we can rationally evaluate that argument.  So, CLARITY is a basic requirement for claims and arguments used in philosophical thinking and for thinking critically about any claim or argument.
 
EVIL PRONOUNS IN THE CORE ARGUMENT
I put the evil pronouns in bold red font.
Premise 3:
it is metaphysically impossible”
“for it to be good for us
“to use those faculties”
“in a manner that is contrary to their procreative and unitive ends”
Premise 4:
“homosexual acts” [ Note: I’m going to ignore the other “bad” sexual activities: “contraceptive acts”, “masturbatory acts”, and “acts of bestiality”.]
“involve the use of our sexual faculties”
“in a manner that is contrary to their procreative and/or unitive ends”
Premise 5:
it is metaphysically impossible”
“for it to be good for us
“to engage in homosexual acts” [ Note: I’m going to ignore the other “bad” sexual activities: “contraceptive acts”, “masturbatory acts”, and “acts of bestiality”.]
 
NOW WE 86 THE PRONOUNS
I replaced the pronouns in bold red font with words or phrases in bold blue font.
Premise 3:
it is metaphysically impossible”   ==>   “a situation is metaphysically impossible”
“for it to be good for us”   ==>   “for the activity to be good for a human being
“to use those faculties”   ==>   “to use the sexual faculties belonging to that human being
“in a manner that is contrary to their procreative and unitive ends”   ==>   “in a manner that is contrary to the procreative and unitive ends of the sexual faculties of human beings
Revision of Premise 3:

3a. A situation where a human being uses the sexual faculties belonging to that human being in a manner that is contrary to the procreative and/or unitive ends of the sexual faculties of human beings AND where that activity is good for that human being is a metaphysically impossible situation.

Premise 4:
“homosexual acts” [there are important elements missing from this phrase]   ==>  “in any situation where a human being engages in homosexual acts”
“involve the use of our sexual faculties”   ==>   “that human being uses the sexual faculties belonging to that human being
“in a manner that is contrary to their procreative and/or unitive ends”   ==>   “in a manner that is contrary to the procreative and/or unitive ends of the sexual faculties of human beings
Revision of Premise 4:

4a. In any situation where a human being engages in homosexual acts, that human being uses the sexual faculties belonging to that human being in a manner that is contrary to the procreative and/or unitive ends of the sexual faculties of human beings.

Premise 5:
it is metaphysically impossible” ==> “a situation is metaphysically impossible”
“for it to be good for us” ==> “for the activity (of engaging in homosexual acts) to be good for a human being
“to engage in homosexual acts” ==> “in any situation where a human being engages in homosexual acts”
Revision of Premise 5:

5a. A situation where a human being engages in homosexual acts AND where that activity (of engaging in homosexual acts) is good for that human being is a metaphysically impossible situation.

 
THE REVISED CORE ARGUMENT OF FESER’S PFA

3a. A situation where a human being uses the sexual faculties belonging to that human being in a manner that is contrary to the procreative and/or unitive ends of the sexual faculties of human beings AND where that activity is good for that human being is a metaphysically impossible situation.

4a. In any situation where a human being engages in homosexual acts, that human being uses the sexual faculties belonging to that human being in a manner that is contrary to the procreative and/or unitive ends of the sexual faculties of human beings.

THEREFORE:

5a. A situation where a human being engages in homosexual acts AND where that activity (of engaging in homosexual acts) is good for that human being is a metaphysically impossible situation.

This revised core argument is significantly more CLEAR than the statement of it by Feser.  However, all three sentences here still make use of UNCLEAR words and phrases, and so I’m not yet willing to admit that these three sentences make actual claims, nor that this is an actual argument.  It depends on whether Feser defines or clarifies the various UNCLEAR  words and phrases in these three sentences.
So, in the next post of this series I will begin to address this question:

Does Feser provide useful definitions or clarifications of the meanings of the key words and phrases in these sentences that are, apart from such efforts, too UNCLEAR to make it so the sentences may reasonably be treated as actual claims?

 
To Be Continued…

bookmark_borderAquinas and Homosexual Sex – Part 8: Legal Definitions

WHERE WE ARE
Sometimes, Christian philosophers put forward pieces of crap that they pretend to be philosophical arguments, but that are just word salads that are posing as philosophical arguments.  The core “argument” in Tim Hsiao’s article “A Defense of the Perverted Faculty Argument against Homosexual Sex” (hereafter: PFA) appears to me to be one such faux argument.  Hsiao fails to define or to clarify ANY of the basic terms and phrases in his core “argument”, making it a string of words that cannot be rationally evaluated.
Here is the core “argument” in PFA:

4. All sexual activity that is not open to the creation of new life is immoral.

A. All homosexual activity is sexual activity that is not open to the creation of new life.

THEREFORE:

7A. All homosexual activity is immoral.

This is NOT an actual argument, because an argument consists of claims (premises) that are given in support of another claim (the conclusion).  But NONE of the three sentences above is a claim.  These are declarative sentences, so they look and sound like claims, but they are TOO UNCLEAR to be rationally evaluated as true or false, or as probable or improbable.  Declarative sentences that are too unclear to be rationally evaluated are NOT claims.  So, these three sentences are FAUX claims  or PSEUDO claims, not actual claims.
These sentences are in the form of a categorical syllogism, so taken together they look and sound like an argument, but this is NOT an actual argument, because the sentences do not make actual claims.  Because these sentences are NOT claims, this collection of sentences is NOT an actual argument, but is a FAUX argument or a PSEUDO argument.  This is just a word salad that Hsiao is pretending to be an argument.
Unless and until Hsiao can figure out what he means by the four UNCLEAR terms in these sentences and then spells out the meanings of these terms so that others can be let in on his little secret, God only knows what the hell these three sentences mean.
 
THE TERM “SEXUAL ACTIVITY” IN THE LEGAL SPHERE
One of the UNCLEAR phrases in Hsiao’s core “argument” is the phrase “sexual activity”.
According to 90Lew90, however, this phrase is “completely unambiguous”:

 
90Lew90 is correct that “sexual activity” is a term of law, but instead of providing a reason or justification for his IDIOTIC claim, he points us to a mountain of evidence that proves the very opposite of his claim.  If you look at the dozens and dozens of different legal definitions of the phrase “sexual activity” the idea that this phrase is “completely unambiguous” quickly becomes ABSURD and impossible for any rational person to believe.
In Part 7 of this series, I pointed out that there are dozens and dozens of different legal definitions of the phrase “sexual activity”, and that the obvious and apparent variety of different definitions makes the claim that this phrase is “completely unambiguous” extremely dubious.
In this post I will examine a number of these legal definitions, and point out specific differences and contradictions between them.  This will show beyond any reasonable doubt that the phrase “sexual activity” is NOT “completely unambiguous” but, rather, that this phrase is undeniably ambiguous, and that it was  foolish of 90Lew90 to point us towards the legal use of this phrase as evidence for his view.
 
A COMPARISON OF SOME LEGAL DEFINITIONS OF “SEXUAL ACTIVITY”
 
==>DEFINITION #1 (or D#1)

D#1 specifies two different categories of “sexual activity” and clarifies what each of those two categories includes.
The first category is that of “sexual conduct” which is, roughly speaking sexual intercourse. Note that there is no requirement concerning the PURPOSE of these actions.  Also note that the people engaged in the activity  must be “without privilege to do so”.  I believe this means that the people who are engaging in the activity do not have a legal right or permission to do so.  For example, if a man has sexual intercourse with a woman who does NOT WANT to have sexual intercourse with that man and has NOT CONSENTED to have sex with the man, then that man does not have “privilege” to have sex with that woman at that time:

If I understand that condition correctly (“without privilege to do so”), then this definition clearly implies that when an adult man and adult woman both willingly engage in sexual intercourse, that would NOT COUNT as “sexual activity” (in most cases) according to D#1, because sexual intercourse between two consenting adults is generally legally permissible (at least when done privately as opposed to in public).  But most of us would consider sexual intercourse between two consenting adults (in private) to constitute a clear example of “sexual activity”, so this legal definition is definitely in conflict with how most people use the term “sexual activity”.
The second category is that of “sexual contact” which is “any touching of an erogenous zone of another” which is done for a particular PURPOSE: “the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying either person” (i.e. either the person who is doing the touching or the person who is being touched).  This condition has a rather interesting implication.  If a man fondles and kisses and licks the naked breasts of a woman as part of a sex show NOT in order to sexually arouse or gratify himself or the woman, but rather for the purpose of sexually arousing or sexually gratifying the patrons who paid to watch the sex show, then this activity would NOT COUNT as “sexual contact” and thus would also NOT COUNT as “sexual activity” according to D#1!  Once again, this implication is contrary to how most people would be inclined to use the term “sexual activity”.
Because the touching must be “of another” in order to be categorized as a “sexual contact”, this definition EXCLUDES public masturbation!  So, if a man takes off his pants in public, and masturbates in public, because he is not touching “another” person, this activity would be EXCLUDED by D#1, and thus would NOT COUNT as a “sexual activity”.  However, most people would consider public masturbation to be a clear case of “sexual activity”, and thus D#1 departs from how most people would use this term.
It is NOT clear on D#1 whether a medical examination involving the insertion of a medical device into the vagina of a woman would COUNT as a “sexual activity”.  It depends on whether the doctor is considered to have done this “without privilege to do so”.  Most of us would ASSUME that consenting to have a medical doctor conduct such an examination would give the doctor the LEGAL RIGHT to insert the medical device into the vagina of the woman, but D#1 does not explicitly spell out the conditions for having “privilege to do so”.  Taken straightforwardly, D#1 categorizes “the insertion…of…any instrument…into the vaginal cavity of another” to constitute a “sexual activity”, even in the case where a medical doctor inserts a medical instrument into a woman’s vagina as part of a legitimate medical examination or procedure, which is contrary to how most people would use the term “sexual activity”.
 
==>DEFINITION #2 (or D#2)
 

Unlike D#1 this definition does NOT divide “sexual activity” into two different categories (e.g. intercourse vs. sexual touching), but focuses exclusively on intercourse or penetration.  So D#2 EXCLUDES various sorts of sexual touching that are specifically INCLUDED by D#1. These two definitions clearly have very different implications concerning what is to count as a “sexual activity”.
Clearly D#2 EXCLUDES passionate kissing and French kissing because that activity does not involve “penetration” nor does it involve “union with…the sexual organ of another”.  Many people, however, would consider passionate kissing and French kissing to be examples of  “sexual activity”.  So, D#2 appears to differ from how many people would use the term “sexual activity”.
D#2 does not mention breasts.  That means that if a man fondles, kisses, and licks the naked breasts of a woman for the purpose of sexually arousing himself and/or the woman or for the purpose of sexually gratifying himself and/or the woman, this does NOT COUNT as a “sexual activity” according to D#2.  However, most people would consider such activity to constitute a clear example of “sexual activity”, so D#2 EXCLUDES an activity that most people would consider to be a “sexual activity”.
Furthermore, D#1 does explicitly mention the touching of a female “breast” as being a “sexual activity” if done for the PURPOSE of sexual arousal or sexual gratification of the person doing the touching or the female whose breast is being touched.  So, D#2 EXCLUDES an activity that is specifically INCLUDED by D#1.
Sucking on the toes of another person can be (and usually is) considered to be a sexual activity, but there is no mention of “toes” in D#2, and this definition is focused on sexual intercourse and penetration, so it EXCLUDES the activity of one person sucking on the toes of another person.  In that respect, this definition appears to depart from how most people would use the term “sexual activity”.
Like D#1, this definition requires that the sexual activity involve touching or penetration of “the sexual organ of another”.  So, D#2 also EXCLUDES public masturbation, which does not involve touching or penetration of “the sexual organ of another” person. Public masturbation would NOT COUNT as a “sexual activity” according to D#2.  However, most people would consider public masturbation to be a clear case of a “sexual activity”, so D#2 clearly departs from how most people use this term.
Unlike D#1, there is no requirement in D#2 that the people engaged in sexual intercourse be “without privilege to do so”, therefore if we consider an adult man and an adult woman who both willingly engage in sexual intercourse with each other (in private) this would COUNT as a “sexual activity” according to D#2, which corresponds with how most people use this term, in contrast with D#1.
Note that there is no requirement in D#2 that anyone engaged in the activity have a particular PURPOSE.  However, there is an interesting EXCLUSION based on “bona fide medical purpose”.  For example, if a medical doctor touches the vagina of a woman or inserts a medical tool into the vagina of a woman as part of a legitimate medical examination (that the woman has agreed to), then this action would NOT be considered to be a “sexual activity”, which is in keeping with how most people use the term “sexual activity”.  This is a very interesting exclusion, because very few definitions of “sexual activity” include such an exclusion, and thus most definitions that fail to require a particular PURPOSE (such as sexual pleasure or sexual gratification) would INCLUDE legitimate medical examinations of sexual organs as being a “sexual activity”!
 
==>DEFINITION #3 (or D#3)

Like D#1 and unlike D#2, this definition INCLUDES more than just sexual intercourse or penetration.  So, D#3 clearly has different implications than D#2 concerning what is to count as a “sexual activity.”
Because specific body parts are required to be involved by D#3, and because lips and tongues are not among the specified body parts, passionate kissing and French kissing would be EXCLUDED by D#3.  However, if lips and tongues are considered “erogenous zones”, then D#1 would INCLUDE passionate kissing and French kissing (if done for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying one or both kissers).  So, D#3 might well have different implications than D#1 concerning what counts as a “sexual activity”.
Because D#3 specifically mentions “female breasts” this definition would INCLUDE the activity of a man fondling, kissing, and licking the naked breasts of a woman, while D#2 clearly EXCLUDES such an activity.  So, the implications of D#3 clearly differ from the implications of D#2, concerning what activities count as being a “sexual activity”.
Like D#2 and unlike D#1, this definition of “sexual activity” does NOT require that the people engaged in the activity be “without privilege to do so”.  So D#3 INCLUDES consensual sexual intercourse between an adult man and an adult woman.
It is not clear whether D#3 refers to any sort of PURPOSE. It uses the vague term “of a sexual nature” as a requirement, but it is not clear whether this implies any particular sorts of PURPOSES on the part of the agents.  If this is a reference to the purpose of sexually arousing or sexually gratifying one of the people involved in the activity, then D#3 would have some similarity to D#1 which specifies one sub-category of “sexual activity” in terms of such purposes.  This would also make D#3 significantly different from D#2 which makes no reference to the purposes of the people involved in the activity.
However, because the expression “of a sexual nature” is VAGUE, we cannot determine whether this refers to the purposes of the agents, nor can we clearly determine what particular purposes this expression might be attempting to specify.  In this respect D#3 is less clear than D#1, because D#1 explicitly spells out what sort of PURPOSES are relevant to the application of the term “sexual activity”.
The requirement that the activity be “of a sexual nature” might, however, be sufficient to EXCLUDE legitimate medical examinations of genitals by a medical doctor.
 
==>DEFINITION #4 (or D#4)

D#4 defines “sexual activity” not in terms of TWO categories (like D#1 does), but in terms of THREE categories:

  • penetration
  • touching
  • any other activity

That means that the scope of D#4 extends beyond the scope of both D#1 and D#2.  It INCLUDES some activities that are neither penetration nor sexual touching, while D#1 includes only those sorts of activities, and D#1 includes only penetration or intercourse.  Clearly D#4 has different implications compared to D#1 and D#2  concerning what COUNTS as being a “sexual activity”
D#4  also specifies THREE different ways that an activity could be classified as being “sexual”:

  • because of the nature of the activity (apart from the circumstances or purposes of the activity)
  • because of the circumstances of the activity
  • because of the purposes of any person in relation to the activity

The definition FAILS to specify or clarify any of the three different ways that an activity could be considered to be “sexual”, so these three different sub-categories are UNCLEAR and are not very helpful.
Because of it’s broader scope D#4 might well INCLUDE passionate kissing and French kissing.  It might well also INCLUDE public masturbation.  Thus, the broader scope of D#4 seems to be closer to the scope of how most people use the term “sexual activity”.
However, because of the vagueness of D#4, there may be many cases or examples where it is difficult to determine with confidence whether that activity COUNTS as being “sexual”.  In this respect D#4 is more UNCLEAR than the previous definitions.
 
==>DEFINITION #5  (or D#5)
 

This definition requires “physical contact” that is either “direct or indirect” and that falls under one of two categories:

  • which is intended to erotically stimulate either person or both
  • which is likely to cause erotic stimulation in either person or both

No specific body parts are mentioned in D#5.  The first category concerns the INTENDED PURPOSE of the activity, and the second category concerns the LIKELY EFFECT of the activity.
Because of the phrase “either person or both” it appears that this definition is focused on activity involving two or more persons, and thus this definition appears to EXCLUDE public masturbation.  However, public masturbation is an activity that most people would consider to be a clear case of a “sexual activity”, so D#5 appears to be in conflict with how most people would use the term “sexual activity”.
Because D#5 does not specify particular body parts, it has a broader scope than some of the previous definitions.  This definition, for example would INCLUDE passionate kissing and French kissing because these activities could be done “to erotically stimulate either person or both”.  A man fondling, kissing, and/or licking the naked breasts of a woman could be done “to erotically stimulate either person or both”.
Furthermore, since a person who engages in sucking the toes of another person usually does this “to erotically stimulate either person or both”, toe sucking would be INCLUDED by this definition.  So, D#5 INCLUDES more than D#2, which focuses on sexual intercourse or penetration.
Because the focus of this definition is on the purpose of erotic stimulation (or the likely effect of erotic stimulation), a medical examination of the genitals of a patient by a medical doctor would (generally) be EXCLUDED by D#5, in keeping with how most people use the term “sexual activity”.
 
==>DEFINITION #6 (or D#6)

Unlike ALL of the previous five definitions, D#6 INCLUDES a category of “soliciting” activities “of a sexual nature”.  So, in that respect, this definition is broader than all the the previous five definitions. Soliciting sexual intercourse would COUNT as a “sexual activity” under this definition.  Soliciting fondling for the purpose of causing sexual arousal would also COUNT as a “sexual activity”, and soliciting someone to engage in passionate kissing or French kissing would COUNT as a “sexual activity”.  None of this would COUNT as a “sexual activity” under ANY of the previous five definitions.
This definition also specifically INCLUDES “kissing” and “fondling” of “parts of the body meant to cause sexual arousal”.  So, D#6 INCLUDES passionate kissing and French kissing, and it INCLUDES a man kissing and fondling the naked breasts of a woman (when this is done to cause sexual arousal), and it would appear to also INCLUDE the activity of toe sucking.
Because there does not appear to be a requirement in D#6 that two or more people are engaging in the activity, it appears that this definition also INCLUDES public masturbation (involving just one person).
 
CONCLUSION
Each of the six LEGAL definitions of “sexual activity” considered above is significantly different than the others.  Each of these definitions has different implications concerning what COUNTS as a “sexual activity”.
Many, if not all, of these definitions INCLUDE (or EXCLUDE) examples that most people would not INCLUDE (or EXCLUDE) and thus depart from how most people use the term “sexual activity”.  Because the various legal definitions of “sexual activity” disagree with each other, and often depart from how most people use the term “sexual activity”, these definitions of the term “sexual activity” provide powerful evidence that the phrase “sexual activity” is NOT “completely unambiguous”.
In pointing to the use of the phrase “sexual activity” in the legal and criminal arena 90Lew90 FAILS to establish his views about the meaning of this phrase, and instead points us to information that clearly proves his claims to be FALSE.  The phrase “sexual activity” is NOT clear; the meaning of this phrase is NOT “completely unambiguous”; the meaning of this phrase is NOT obvious.  Rather, the meaning of the phrase “sexual activity” is UNCLEAR and AMBIGUOUS, and it is in need of definition or clarification.
The UNCLARITY of the phrase “sexual activity” supports my view that sentence (4) and sentence (A) of Hsiao’s core “argument” are both FAUX claims, and thus that his core “argument” is not an actual argument, but is a FAUX argument that merely looks and sounds like an argument.
For many more LEGAL definitions of the phrase “sexual activity”, see this website: https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/sexual-activity
PS
I have no interest in wasting my time attempting to evaluate Hsiao’s FAUX argument.  However, I will check out the efforts by Edward Feser to support and defend a version of the Perverted Faculties Argument in order to determine whether Feser manages to present an ACTUAL argument, an argument that is composed of ACTUAL claims.  If Feser seems to present an ACTUAL argument, then I will attempt to evaluate that argument.

bookmark_borderLeviticus and Homosexuality – Part 11: Bad Guidelines

In previous posts I have presented some reasons for rejecting the idea that the book of Leviticus was inspired by God, and for rejecting the view that this book is a reliable source of truth or wisdom. In this post I will discuss, or begin to discuss, two more reasons for rejecting the idea that Leviticus was inspired by God, or that it is a reliable source of truth or wisdom:

5. Leviticus contains bad moral guidelines.
6. Leviticus contains bad laws and bad social guidelines.

The Bible in general, and the first five books of the Bible in particular, is supposed to provide us with excellent moral guidelines, and exemplary laws and social guidelines.  The book of Leviticus, however, is FILLED from start to finish with BAD moral guidelines, BAD laws, and BAD social guidelines.  If the book of Leviticus contains messages from Jehovah (as most Christians and Jews believe), then we may reasonably infer that Jehovah is either a SHITHEAD and/or an ASSHOLE, based on the lousiness of his rules, laws, and guidelines.
In more philosophical terms, we may reasonably infer that Jehovah is a morally imperfect person or an intellectually imperfect person, or that Jehovah is both morally and intellectually imperfect.  If Jehovah is either morally or intellectually imperfect, then Jehovah is NOT God, because God, by definition, is morally and intellectually perfect.  In any case, the BAD moral and practical guidelines presented in Leviticus show that this book was clearly NOT inspired by God, and that we have very good reason to reject this book as having any sort of authority or credibility as a source of moral or practical truth.
 
LEVITICUS CONTAINS BAD MORAL GUIDELINES
The book of Leviticus promotes sexism.  The book of Leviticus promotes slavery and discrimination.  The book of Leviticus promotes violence and wars of aggression.  This book is better at instructing us about how NOT to behave, or about how to behave without regard to basic morality and without regard for basic fairness, and without regard for basic human rights, than it is at providing instruction about how to be a good and just person.  Leviticus is better at teaching people how to be SHITHEADS and ASSHOLES than to be decent human beings.

SEXISM is rampant in Leviticus, from start to finish.  For example, the first five verses of Leviticus are drenched in sexism:

1 Now the LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying,
2 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When anyone of you brings an offering to the LORD, you shall bring your offering of livestock from the herd or the flock.
3 If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without defect; he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent of meeting, so that he may be accepted before the LORD.
4 And he shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, so that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf.
5 Then he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall offer up the blood and sprinkle the blood around on the altar that is at the doorway of the tent of meeting.
(Leviticus 1:1-5, New American Standard Bible)

In verse 1 of Chapter 1,  Jehovah speaks through a prophet named Moses.  Moses was a man, not a woman.  Nearly all the prophets mentioned in the Old Testament are  men; very few women are called prophets in the OT.  And although there are many books in the OT that are attributed to a male prophet, there are ZERO books in the OT that are attributed to a female prophet.  The first five books of the OT are attributed to the male prophet Moses.  There are just two books in the OT named after women:  Ruth and Esther.  Ruth did not claim to be a prophet, is not called a prophet in the OT, and is not considered to be a prophet. Esther did not claim to be a prophet, is not called a prophet in the OT, and is not considered to be a prophet.
In addition to the five books attributed to the male prophet Moses, there are five books called “the major prophets”:  Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel.  These are the names of four men who were considered OT prophets (Lamentations is traditionally believed to have been written by Jeremiah). ZERO of “the major prophets” books was written by a woman prophet.
Twelve books of the OT are called “the minor prophets”: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. These are the names of twelve men who were OT prophets.  ZERO of “the minor prophets” was written by a woman prophet.  So, clearly Jehovah strongly preferred to communicate through men rather than women.  Jehovah was a sexist who promoted sexism.
Not only does Jehovah communicate primarily through men, but his communications are directed primarily to men.  In verse 2 of Chapter 1, Jehovah tells his prophet Moses to “Speak to the sons of Israel…”.  The book of Leviticus is thus directed primarily to men, not to women.  This is another way in which Jehovah displayed and promoted sexism.
In verse 3 of Chapter 1,  Jehovah requires that any animal brought as a “burnt offering” be “a male without defect”.  In other words, a “burnt offering” should be one of the very best animals from the herd or flock, and being a “male” would make the animal one of the best.  So, this requirement also displays and promotes sexism.
The leader of the priesthood was Aaron, a man who was the brother of Moses.  This is another example of sexism.  Furthermore, in verse 5 of Chapter 1, we learn that ALL of the priests for Jehovah (other than Aaron) were required to be SONS of Aaron.  No women were allowed to be priests for Jehovah.  So, in addition to promoting sexism by choosing men almost exclusively to be his prophets or messengers, Jehovah further displayed and promoted sexism by requiring that ALL of his priests be men.
In short, the first five verses of Leviticus are completely drenched in sexism.  If the book of Leviticus was inspired by Jehovah, then Jehovah was a sexist; Jehovah has an ignorant and unjust attitude of prejudice towards women, and Jehovah promoted this ignorant and unjust attitude towards women.  If Jehovah was a sexist and promoted sexism, then Jehovah is ignorant and unjust and thus is NOT God.  God, if God exists, is all-knowing and perfectly good.  God is not, and cannot be, a sexist.  Therefore, the first five verses of Leviticus are sufficient by themselves to establish that this book was NOT inspired by God.
 
 
CHAPTER 2 OF LEVITICUS
Jehovah again displays and promotes SEXISM in Chapter 2:

1 ‘Now when anyone presents a grain offering as an offering to the LORD, his offering shall be of fine flour, and he shall pour oil on it and put frankincense on it.
2 He shall then bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests; and he shall take from it his handful of its fine flour and of its oil, with all of its frankincense. And the priest shall offer it up in smoke as its memorial portion on the altar, an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to the LORD.
3 The remainder of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons: a most holy part of the offerings to the LORD by fire.
(Leviticus 2:1-3, New American Standard Bible)

 
CHAPTER 3 OF LEVITICUS
Jehovah also displays and promotes SEXISM in Chapter 3:

1 ‘Now if his offering is a sacrifice of peace offerings, if he is going to offer from the herd, whether male or female, he shall offer it without defect before the LORD.
2 And he shall lay his hand on the head of his offering and slaughter it at the doorway of the tent of meeting, and Aaron’s sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood around on the altar.
3 From the sacrifice of the peace offerings he shall then present an offering by fire to the LORD, the fat that covers the entrails and all the fat that is on the entrails…
(Leviticus 3:1-3, New American Standard Bible)

 
CHAPTER 4 OF LEVITICUS
It should be no surprise that Jehovah continues to display and promote SEXSIM in Chapter 4:

1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
2 “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a person sins unintentionally in any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, and commits any of them,
3 if the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then he is to offer to the LORD a bull without defect as a sin offering for his sin which he has committed.
(Leviticus 4:1-3, New American Standard Bible)

22 ‘When a leader sins and unintentionally does any of the things which the LORD his God has commanded not to be done, and he becomes guilty,
23 if his sin which he has committed is made known to him, he shall bring as his offering a goat, a male without defect.
24 And he shall lay his hand on the head of the male goat and slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering before the Lord; it is a sin offering.
(Leviticus 4:22-24, New American Standard Bible)

 
BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE…
Not only do we find this ignorant and unjust sexism consistently promoted throughout the entire book of Leviticus, but we also find other stupid and unjust views, laws, and guidelines promoted in Leviticus.  For example, there is no hint that DEMOCRACY is of any value; instead we get a big fat helping of brutal authoritarianism.  There is no hint that FREEDOM OF RELIGION has any value; instead, religious beliefs and practices are repeatedly DICTATED by laws and ENFORCED by the threat of the DEATH PENALTY.
Moses was not elected  by the Israelites to be the ruler of the Israelites.  Jehovah was not elected by the Israelites to be the god of the Israelites.  Aaron was not elected by the Israelites to be the head of the priesthood by the Israelites.  The sons of Aaron were not elected by the Israelites to be their priests. Jehovah and Moses simply dictated all of this to the Israelites and determined that anyone who refused to follow the “laws” dictated by Jehovah and Moses would be put to death.  This included laws that dictated WHO the Israelites would worship and HOW that worship would be conducted.  Anyone who worshiped a god other than Jehovah or who worshiped Jehovah in some way other than the ways dictated by Jehovah and Moses were to be put to death.
We in the USA believe in Democracy and Freedom of Religion (at least Americans who are not SHITHEAD Trump supporters).  We believe that anti-democratic authoritarian rulers who persecute and kill people who practice a religion different than the religion approved by the authoritarian rulers are evil, and thus such governments are BAD for human beings.  But it is precisely such a social and political system that Jehovah, Moses, and the book of Leviticus promotes!  For anyone who believes in DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM OF RELIGION, this is powerful evidence that Jehovah was NOT God, and that the book of Leviticus was NOT inspired by God.  It is rather the work of a person who was a SHITHEAD and/or an ASSHOLE.
As I argued in Part 6 of this series, killing thousands of mammals and birds every year to atone for sins when only the death of Jesus can atone for sins is not just stupid, it is morally wrong.  It is wrong to kill thousands of mammals and birds every year for no good reason, and according to the teachings of the New Testament, sacrificing animals does NOTHING to atone for anyone’s sins.  If animals sacrifices worked to atone for sins, then there was no need for Jesus to die on the cross to atone for anyone’s sins.
So, if one accepts the Christian belief that Jesus’ death was necessary to accomplish atonement for the sins of all humankind, then animal sacrifices to Jehovah were superfluous and thus immoral.  Either Jehovah was IGNORANT about the fact that only the death of Jesus could atone for sins, or else Christianity is a false religion, and the death of Jesus was NOT the only way to atone for the sins of humankind.  If Jehovah believed that animals sacrifices could atone for human sins, and if the truth is that ONLY the death of Jesus could atone for human sins, then Jehovah was wrong about one of the most important theological issues that exists, and thus Jehovah was NOT God.
On the other hand, if Jehovah believed that animal sacrifices could atone for human sins and he was RIGHT about this, then Christianity is a false religion, and the death of Jesus was unnecessary for the atonement of sin.  From the point of view of Christian Theology, the belief that animal sacrifices can atone for human sins is a serious error, and thus Jehovah was MISTAKEN, and thus Jehovah was NOT God, and thus Leviticus was NOT inspired by God.
The whole idea of one person or creature suffering to atone for the sins of another creature or person is in itself a morally flawed idea.  Justice cannot be achieved this way.  Children should not be punished for the sins of their parents.  The Bible itself teaches this principle of justice:

20 The person who sins shall die. A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own.  (Ezekiel 18:20, New Revised Standard Version)

But underneath this principle is a more basic principle:  One person should not be punished for the bad actions of another person.  Thus, whether atonement of sins is believed to be based on the killing of animals or the killing of a person (i.e. Jesus), the whole idea of atonement is contrary to a basic principle of justice.  Both the OT and the NT embrace the idea of atonement for sins based on the killing of a creature other than the person who committed a wrong action.  This is unjust and provides us with a very good reason for rejecting the view that the OT was inspired by God, and for also rejecting the view that the NT was inspired by God.

 
CHAPTER 11 OF LEVITICUS
In Chapter 11, Jehovah prohibits the Israelites from eating various kinds of animals and sea creatures:

1 The LORD spoke again to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them,
2 “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘These are the creatures which you may eat from all the animals that are on the earth.
3 Whatever has a divided hoof, showing split hoofs, and chews the cud, among the animals, that you may eat.
4 Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these, among those which chew the cud, or among those which have a divided hoof: the camel, for though it chews cud, it does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean to you.
5 Likewise, the rock hyrax, for though it chews cud, it does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean to you.
6 The rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean to you.
7 And the pig, for though it has a divided hoof, and so it shows a split hoof, it does not chew cud; it is unclean to you.
8 You shall not eat any of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.
9 ‘These you may eat, of whatever is in the water: everything that has fins and scales, in the water, in the seas, or in the rivers, you may eat.
10 But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you,
11 and they shall be detestable to you; you may not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses.
12 Whatever in the water does not have fins and scales is detestable to you.
(Leviticus 11:1-12, New American Standard Bible)

These prohibitions are STUPID.  Rabbits and pigs can be domesticated and can provide a great source of meat and protein for people to eat, be healthy, and avoid starvation or malnourishment.  Clams, oysters, lobsters, abalone, crabs, and shrimp provide further sources of meat and protein for people to eat, be healthy, and avoid starvation and malnourishment.  To prohibit the eating of such sea creatures is STUPID.  This is clearly BAD guidance about what people should not eat.
Such prohibitions by Jehovah imply that either Jehovah was IGNORANT that these creatures provide a good source of meat and protein for people to eat, or else that Jehovah did not care greatly whether the Israelites had plenty of sources of meat and protein in order to avoid starvation or malnourishment.  Either way this prohibition is clear evidence that Jehovah is NOT both all-knowing and perfectly good.  Jehovah is either IGNORANT or less than perfectly good.  Either way, Jehovah is NOT God, and thus Leviticus was NOT inspired by God.
To Be Continued…